4.5 Article

PC-SAFT Modeling of CO2 Solubilities in Deep Eutectic Solvents

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 120, 期 9, 页码 2300-2310

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b07888

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perturbed-Chain Statistical Associating Fluid Theory (PC-SAFT), a physically based model that accounts for different molecular interactions explicitly, was applied to describe for the first time the phase behavior of deep eutectic solvents (DESs) with CO2 at temperatures from 298.15 to 318.15 K and pressures up to 2 MPa. DESs are mixtures of two solid compounds, a hydrogen bond donor (HBD) and a hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA), which form liquids upon mixing with melting points far below that of the individual compounds. In this work, the HBD is lactic acid and the HBAs are tetramethylammonium chloride, tetraethylammonium chloride, and tetrabutylammonium chloride. Two different modeling strategies were considered for the PC-SAFT modeling. In the first strategy, the so-called pseudo-pure component approach, a DES was considered as a pseudo pure compound, and its pure-component parameters were obtained by fitting to pure DES density data. In the second strategy, the so-called individual-component approach, a DES was considered to consist of two individual components (HBA and HBD), and the pure-component parameters of the HBA and HBD were obtained by fitting to the density of aqueous solutions containing only the individual compounds of the DES. In order to model vapor-liquid equilibria (VLE) of DES + CO2 systems, binary interaction parameters were adjusted to experimental data from the literature and to new data measured in this work. It was concluded that the individual-component strategy allows quantitative prediction of the phase behavior of DES + CO2 systems containing those HBD:HBA molar ratios that were not used for k(ij) fitting. In contrast, applying the pseudo-pure component strategy required DES-composition specific k(ij) parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据